It seems that as the effects of sexual abuse are more explored that well-structured fetishes (as opposed to sexual fetish play) is connected to abuse -- either profound emotional abuse or neglect or physical and/or sexual abuse.

While the jury's still out about this, it would seem to make sense that if a person develops attachments to objects, body-parts or sexual acts at the expense of developing relational attachments (ie, a well-structured fetish that MUST be present for any sexual satisfaction whatsoever, or that is performed despite severe consequences -- loss of family or legal ramifications) then probably there's been an early, traumatic event in which the infant/child/adolescent experienced profound disruptions of early, reliable attachments.

Anyway, there's a big difference between someone who likes to play tie me up, tie me down, games with trusted others and the person who is so driven to satisfy a fetish that they go against their own overall well-being, etc.... In the latter case it seems logical to assume that there's been a profound disruption of the attachment system.

I doubt that the existence of a fetish per se is what's at issue, but the ability to play at a variety of experiences which involves cared-for self and others.

I can't imagine that a person who can only be sexual with a shoe didn't experience real trauma. Likewise, I can't imagine that those involved in serious S&M practices wherein the choice of partner is absolutely secondary didn't also experience real trauma. Nor can I imagine that certain fetishistic practices, however they're practiced (even within loving relationships) isn't an expression of a repetition of experienced traumatic loss, like diaper fetishism -- as opposed to breast fetishes (which in the West few heterosexual men are completely without).

I posted in the thread you are referring to. As I posted there I have no idea if I was any help. I have read a ton of post on other sites and I get the feeling that people that have no abuse history do develop fetishes of all kinds. I believe that at least with BD&SM there are people that are naturally submissive or dominant. There are also people that get sexually satisfied from all forms of pain.

Then there are people that have abuse history that are either acting out or that receive somewhat of a power trip by practicing fetish type sex. They may also not enjoy or be comfortable with intimate sex because they were abused under a veil of intimacy or all they know of sex closely resembles a fetish of some type. But there are also people that have been abused that practice what society would call normal sex. So all of this tends to blur things to the point that true facts are hard to come by.

Now we can complicate things farther by adding things we see in nature. It is clear that animals in nature Pack animals inperticular that closely relate to humans break into alpha and beta personality's. A young animal may challenge for the alpha position but if beaten back will take a beta role in the pack. however there will be some that won't challenged the alpha and are just beta from the start.

Given that we are just really a more evolved animals we have to assume that some people are born with a submissive or dominant personality. But some events that these people are exposed to may change the personality they are born with.

Now does diaper,shoe fetishes and the like fall into this somewhere or are they something much different I won't even try to guess at.

My two cents say yeah, sure, sometimes trauma is what's behind fetishes. But then our culture *is* super crazy and restrictive. I think very often people are also responding (with their fetishes) to other stuff. IE the CEO who goes to a dominatrix b/c everyone else treats him with so much power. But, then, getting off on shoes? Probably that's a trauma thing.

I'm not really talking about dominant/submissive play or pain play or whatever -- I'd agree that aggressive and passive elements are inherent in sex, human, animale or otherwise.

And I don't have much experience purusing the BDSM sites on the computer -- though I have done some purusing, just not much.

So, a question: There seems to be people who MUST perform a sexual act, of whatever nature, and the sexual act takes precedent over all else in that person's life, and that person reports having a loving, kind, empathically intuned, relationship with both their mother and father? A good, nurturing environment in which their person and gender was recognized and promoted?

Don't know, just find it difficult to believe. But I'd be interested in knowing if such a thing exists. The only person I know for whom dominant/submissive play is a necessity is a guy who had a very disfunctional family. So much so that the parents at one point told his dying brother that they wouldn't go to his funeral because of old resentments against him.

And I do mean this guy CAN'T have sex without the women being tied up. Again, it's the lack of a broader repertoir that's striking, not the preference (non-exclusive) for dominant/submissive play.

And personally, I'd be hard pressed to believe that a man who simply CAN'T have sex with a woman unless she's bound and gagged has the most healthy attitude towards either the male or female sex -- as well as sex in a general since. To me it speaks of basic fear and the inability to let go and be vulnerable within the terms of intimacy.

Again, I see a difference between liking sex play and HAVING to adhere to a strict>

Seriously, the CEO who goes to prostitutes to get someone to dominate him probably has a lot of issues going on, some inherited by cultural crap and how we're all traumatizded to a certain extent by stupid cultural expectations. But he also probably had a family in which it was absolutely prohibited for him to be any other than "male", ie, traditionally concieved such that he had to split off his "feminine" (passive) longings and so now it feel prohibitive for him to bring that part of himself into relationship on an intimate level.

At least it seems this way to me.

And Bill Clinton -- the silly jerk -- had a crappy childhood. And I doubt that a 100 Monicas is the answer to his loneliness, anymore than being President filled that gap.

I
agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and
chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole
discretion of MaleSurvivor. I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor
resources are AT-WILL,
and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for
any reason by MaleSurvivor.